[geo] Does everyone agree with everything in the Solar Radiation Management section of National Academy's America's Climate Choices report

[Ken Caldeira]

Folks,

I am surprised that the section on Solar Radiation Management the National Academy's "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" report has received almost no comment in this group or in the media.

This is the first time in 18 years that the National Academies have weighed in on geoengineering, and they do so by calling for research into geoengineering and there is nary a mention in the press. The National Academies call for research into solar radiation management and everyone treats it as "ho-hum, what else is new?".

(Eli Kintisch was an exception with a short post in ScienceInsider: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/national-academy-report-calls-fo.html)

I find it amazing that the US National Academies call for research into geoengineering options and it is met with a yawn. Have we come to the point where nearly everybody (except those involved in the CBD process) thinks it is obvious this research is necessary?

I think we have reached an important new milestone. Researching solar radiation management has ceased to be controversial (although field testing and deployment no doubt continues to be so).

Comments?

Best,

Ken

PS. Here is an extract.

However, the various SRM proposals and their consequences need to be examined, as long as such research does not replace or reduce research on fundamental understanding of climate change or other approaches to limiting climate change or adapting to its impacts. Some key SRM-related research needs, discussed in Chapter 15, include the following:

•  Improve understanding of the physical potential and technical feasibility of SRM and other geoengineering approaches.

• Evaluate the potential consequences of SRM approaches on other aspects of the Earth system, including ecosystems on land and in the oceans.

• Develop and evaluate systems of governance that would provide a model for how to decide whether, when, and how to intentionally intervene in the climate system.

• Measure and evaluate public attitudes and develop approaches that effectively inform and engage the public in decisions regarding SRM.

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote:

See attached report summary from "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" + sections on Solar Radiation Management

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782

Advancing the Science of Climate Change

Status: Prepublication Available Size: 506 pages, 7 x 10 Publication Year:2010

Authors:
America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council

------------------------------

Prepublication - What is it?

An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of the book.

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[Manu Sharma]

The New York Times did mention Geoenginerring in its coverage of NAS reports but not in the same vein...

While proposals to fight climate change by geoengineering are gaining steam as a potential stopgap in case emissions cuts fail to stave off dangerous climate change, the science academy's analyses say there is limited research on the feasibility or risk of implementing one of the most-discussed approaches.

Solar radiation management techniques -- which seek to limit warming by increasing the amount of sunlight reflected into space by increasing cloud cover or placing reflective particles or mirrors into the upper atmosphere -- "all involve considerable risk and potential for unintended ... side effects," the analyses conclude.

Manu

[David Schnare]

Ken:

There is now a substantial bureaucracy associated with climate change (inside and outside of government).  Like many in this group, they have a hard core, unshakable belief that it is now too late to prevent climate change, and thus they need to put their attention elsewhere.  Indeed, a shift has already begun to move away from concern over carbon reduction to concern over endangered species - complete with calls for an IPCC-like group to address the issue and develop a "solution."

The only "solution" to climate change will now be adaptation, including geoengineering.  Hence, no need to argue about it all that much any more, especially since the money pipeline to climate alarmism is choked to overflowing, allowing some bit of the excess to go to mitigation. 

Personally, I believe we are going to see a more public push this fall as the Arctic ice extent drops to only slightly above the 2007 levels.  That alarm will only ring for a little over a year as a major recovery will occur in the coming two years so the min in 11 and 12 will be a greater extent than 09. NH ice is in a recovery, but in a herky jerk one step down, two steps up fashion. The real turn in this will come in 10-15 years when the AMO joins the PDO with cyclical cold in tandem.  By then, when geoengineering might actually be available for implementation, we won't need it.  But, just MHO.

David S.

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I am surprised that the section on Solar Radiation Management the National Academy's "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" report has received almost no comment in this group or in the media.
>
> This is the first time in 18 years that the National Academies have weighed in on geoengineering, and they do so by calling for research into geoengineering and there is nary a mention in the press. The National Academies call for research into solar radiation management and everyone treats it as "ho-hum, what else is new?".
>
> (Eli Kintisch was an exception with a short post in ScienceInsider: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/national-academy-report-calls-fo.html)
>
> I find it amazing that the US National Academies call for research into geoengineering options and it is met with a yawn. Have we come to the point where nearly everybody (except those involved in the CBD process) thinks it is obvious this research is necessary?
>
> I think we have reached an important new milestone. Researching solar radiation management has ceased to be controversial (although field testing and deployment no doubt continues to be so).
>
> Comments?
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> PS. Here is an extract.
>
> However, the various SRM proposals and their consequences need to be examined, as long as such research does not replace or reduce research on fundamental understanding of climate change or other approaches to limiting climate change or adapting to its impacts. Some key SRM-related research needs, discussed in Chapter 15, include the following:
>
>  Improve understanding of the physical potential and technical feasibility of SRM and other geoengineering approaches.
>
> Evaluate the potential consequences of SRM approaches on other aspects of the Earth system, including ecosystems on land and in the oceans.
>
> Develop and evaluate systems of governance that would provide a model for how to decide whether, when, and how to intentionally intervene in the climate system.
>
> Measure and evaluate public attitudes and develop approaches that effectively inform and engage the public in decisions regarding SRM.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>> See attached report summary from "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" + sections on Solar Radiation Management
>>
>> http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782
>>
>> Advancing the Science of Climate Change
>>

>> Status: Prepublication Available
>>
>> Size: 506 pages, 7 x 10
>>
>> Publication Year:2010
>>
>> Authors:
>> America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Prepublication - What is it?
>>
>> An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of the book.
>>
>> ___________________________________________________
>> Ken Caldeira
>>
>> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>>
>> kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
>> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
>> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  
>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship

[Ron Larson]

Geoengineering list:

    1.  In order to help those who might be looking for what this NAS group might have said about Biochar, the answer is  they used the word twice in a single sentence on p 235 (out of 292pp).   This is all they could find to say:

    "Incorporating biochar (charcoal from fast-growing trees or other biomass that is burned in a low oxygen environment) has also been proposed as a potentially effective way of taking carbon out of the atmosphere; the resulting biochar can be added to soils for storage and improvement of soil quality (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009), although there as been some debate about the longevity of the storage (Lehmann and Sohi, 2008; Wardle etal, 2008)."

    2.  Frankly, I am un-impressed.  The NAS authors missed any mention of significantly increased crop production, no mention of the extensive terra preta history, no mention of N2O and CH4 capture, retention of soil moisture, and the world-wide need to reclaim idle and degraded land.  There could have been mention of the IBI site which has put the Lehmann-Wardle debate on a non-Biochar experiment to rest [see .http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_RS_soil_carbon_loss5-10.pdf ]

    3.  One sentence for Biochar?  Even the Royal Academy did better than that.
 
Ron